CBA Community Archaeology Report

[Jack]

“a career in the field” -sorry mum but there probably is no such thing as a career to be had in the field.....

er what gives you that idea? I've been working in the field for 13 years, and I know lots of other people with equal or more number of years

[Unitof1]

career



working





not working

[BAJR]

not wanting to take too much away from this thread... and remember I am away in Croatia... so have now had the opportunity to read report... (the joy of mobile internet!) however... skilling the sector... skills passport... specifically for people who want to get the skills to be commercial.

Can't fault Units logic... but my name ends in D... and I am joint leader of a YAC. I also love working with vollys... and enjoy triainging anyone... I have seen however, few people coming to my projects to be trained. I like many others was trained by real supervisors... who took time, by surveyors who spared time, by finds people who did not mind sharing... damn fine..

Look forward to reading the full report to be able to comment more.

[Comarch]

I have read the report and concentrated on where it relates to how community archaeology needs to progress, especially training. The other comments have missed the point. I, as a freelance community archaeologist, do not want field archaeologists to be burdened with training members of the public. They have enough to do just to survive on low wages and the constant threat of being laid off. Nor do I want field archaeologists working for units to be forced to give up any time extra to their already full duties. I want properly trained professional community archaeologists working with the public and developing the enthusiasm for the past that is obviously already there but frustrated at not being able to express that interest, because commercial archaeology has to chase the bucks. The demand to get involved, in whatever capacity, is there we need to address it. We need public support, because it is their heritage after all! The CBA will hopefully now get its act together and train those who wish to specialise in this vital work and not let it drift into 'amateurism' even more than it is already [as field archaeology was 40 years ago]. That is why the IfA needed to change its name so as to include all archaeologists and not just field workers. Why do CAs need training? I will give that up to other comments...

[Unitof1]

Field workers are trying to create a professional career out of the field. To do this it is believed that the field workers have to have principles codes and standards which add value to their product. Every time a vouleentter is brought on to a “site” or who mimics what can be construed to be an archaeological activity, who is not a trainee, these principles codes and standards are manifestly shown to be immaterial.

[SIZE=3]“We need public support, because it is their heritage after all!”
[/SIZE]

no it is not, do not hid behind the word heritage. You will find that archaeology exists on land which will have an ownership. This ownership is lawful. When anybody is undertaking archaeology this ownership should be recognised and deferred to. All commercial archaeology is based on landownership and the rights of landowners to undertake development on land over which they have control.

[SIZE=3]That is why the IfA needed to change its name so as to include all archaeologists and not just field workers.
[/SIZE]

What you are saying is that people who wished to be associated with archaeology thought that they were being clever when they removed the word field from the ifa trade name knowing full well that the codes were originally created around the concept of field archaeology which is what they still desperately want to be associated with to basically to give themselves authority whether it is as managers of field workers or people possibly like yourself working in the education, tourist, social service industries. They rely on the confusion which you are perpetuating that some how you can be an archaeologist by affiliation to field work when you do not earn your money from your field skills in the field but earn your living from what will probably be shown to be some other professional association. I don’t know where you get your funding from but “community” so called archaeology tends to be grant funded with a myriad of justifications and obscure claims for its value.

I do not mean to denigrate so called community archaeology. I think the key to it is that any vouleenteer is actually a trainee. As such before undertaking any archaeological activity the individual should apply for trainee affiliation to the field workers archaeological association and pay a fee before undertaking any training and that the training should have principles codes and rules and the trainee should be certified at cost at various stages of their exploitation.

All trainee Please make direct monthly debit ?35 to
Paddle Maker and field archaeologist numberone chief association
Madugri Creek
Nigeria

One other point the central funding for the CBA should be withdrawn.

[RedEarth]

I think quite a lot of my original comment has been lost someone through this discussion. I was really commenting more on the fact (as I perceive it) that training needs are not properly met in commercial archaeology and yet there is tonnes of cash sloshing around in community projects, much of which is being spent on what is at least often referred to as training (indeed, that seems to be the whole point in many cases). I have had what Unit quite rightly states could be laughably referred to as a career in commercial archaeology for some years now and had virtually no formal training in that entire time, picking things up as I went a long most of the time (fortunately I am incredibly intelligent so I picked up a lot of things). The problem is the idea of formal and organised training and the notion of a career - formal and organised training seems to be the focus of a number of community projects, but is hardly dealt with in commercial archaeology, this feeds into the idea of a career. I would say the definition of a career is having some forward-looking trajectory or at least a sense of stability through reasonable pay, conditions, etc. Hanging on for 10 years or so, various contracts, changing company a couple of times, with little sense that it might ever change is not what I would call a career.

Anyway, probably moved away from the topic a little. My concern with what seems like an increasing emphasis on community projects in some areas/by some people is its potentially detrimental affect on commercial training and development. It also provides little financial reward to the commercial sector (not that it should) as the majority of the money in the cases I've seen gets sucked up by one or two 'consultants' or so called archaeologists (no offence intended to anyone on this forum I'm sure). It concerns me the amount the profession is forced to prostitute itself to such projects just to get the chance to work on a nice site or see a bit if the cash.

The profession could do with similar funding to help get it out of its current mess by investing in the future, rather than teaching pensions how to dig for a few weeks.

[Comarch]

Ok, lets get some things straight.
I absolutely agree that training needs are not being met in commercial archaeology. I was in the field for 20 years and did not have 1 single day being 'trained'. I also had to pick stuff up from day one on site. That puts me in the same boat as many people and also more than a 'so-called' archaeologist. In commercial archaeology the key is in the name - commercial. They (developers) will do things cheap, as it is in the nature of capitalism to do so, and units vie for business in the same manner. Do you think they will invest in a transitory work force with little union muscle? We are not professionals because we do not have a professional structure for field staff to be so called. That is a question for field archaeologists to fight to answer and all power to your elbow. I know it will be hard; I was a union official!
Cash for community archaeology has nothing to do with the field and how it is funded. Developers pay your wages through the units - basic. CA money would not go to field arch., even if CA projects did not exist. Money is not being sucked out of field archaeology by CA.
Principles, codes and standards apply to commercial archaeology because you are paid to do a job. People involved in CA projects, whether excavation or other, are not paid or working on commercial sites in the majority of cases. They work mainly on sites specially set up for CA projects or some people pay to work on specially designed training sites, run as a business. In 20 years I only worked on one site with volunteers as part of a specially designed project which had no impact on the other jobs undertaken by the unit. The need for codes, princilples and standards rests with the person(s) running CA sites/projects. That is why they need to have rigerous training of CAs by peers and archaeology organisations and thus avoid 'cowboys' taking over to make a quick buck from a growing trend. Codes relate to all who make a living by the subject.
So the past is private property?! Commercial archaeology is not the only criteria of the past. Just because we have worked for private businesses and paid by developers 'the past' has not been privatised. The activity of commercial archaeology should not be mixed up with the idea of the past. That belongs to all. Not units, not developers who own the land, not academics who teach and research it and not by those who find it. Do you take home what you find? Technically it is owned by someone, intellectually it is owned by us all.
People who wish to get involved in 'the past' in whatever way, are not trying to be Archaeologists (although they may want to go on and be so), just interested, like we all were at some point, before we became delicate little flowers wanting to keep archaeology all to ourselves and not have the 'great unwashed' poking their noses in. Any person working in CA is not looking to 'have authority' (show off) but is driven by a passion to enthuse anyone looking to touch the past for themselves rather than being put in the position of a voyeur.
Anyone who thinks that the trend for more public access to archaeology/heritage will fade and we can go back to our 'hobby' in peace is p***ing into the wind. If we want to be professional lets have a professional approach to making that access sustainable and positive for heritage workers and the public.

[RedEarth]

Ok, lets get some things straight.
I absolutely agree that training needs are not being met in commercial archaeology. I was in the field for 20 years and did not have 1 single day being 'trained'. I also had to pick stuff up from day one on site. That puts me in the same boat as many people and also more than a 'so-called' archaeologist. In commercial archaeology the key is in the name - commercial. They (developers) will do things cheap, as it is in the nature of capitalism to do so, and units vie for business in the same manner. Do you think they will invest in a transitory work force with little union muscle? We are not professionals because we do not have a professional structure for field staff to be so called. That is a question for field archaeologists to fight to answer and all power to your elbow. I know it will be hard; I was a union official!
Cash for community archaeology has nothing to do with the field and how it is funded. Developers pay your wages through the units - basic. CA money would not go to field arch., even if CA projects did not exist. Money is not being sucked out of field archaeology by CA.
Principles, codes and standards apply to commercial archaeology because you are paid to do a job. People involved in CA projects, whether excavation or other, are not paid or working on commercial sites in the majority of cases. They work mainly on sites specially set up for CA projects or some people pay to work on specially designed training sites, run as a business. In 20 years I only worked on one site with volunteers as part of a specially designed project which had no impact on the other jobs undertaken by the unit. The need for codes, princilples and standards rests with the person(s) running CA sites/projects. That is why they need to have rigerous training of CAs by peers and archaeology organisations and thus avoid 'cowboys' taking over to make a quick buck from a growing trend. Codes relate to all who make a living by the subject.
So the past is private property?! Commercial archaeology is not the only criteria of the past. Just because we have worked for private businesses and paid by developers 'the past' has not been privatised. The activity of commercial archaeology should not be mixed up with the idea of the past. That belongs to all. Not units, not developers who own the land, not academics who teach and research it and not by those who find it. Do you take home what you find? Technically it is owned by someone, intellectually it is owned by us all.
People who wish to get involved in 'the past' in whatever way, are not trying to be Archaeologists (although they may want to go on and be so), just interested, like we all were at some point, before we became delicate little flowers wanting to keep archaeology all to ourselves and not have the 'great unwashed' poking their noses in. Any person working in CA is not looking to 'have authority' (show off) but is driven by a passion to enthuse anyone looking to touch the past for themselves rather than being put in the position of a voyeur.
Anyone who thinks that the trend for more public access to archaeology/heritage will fade and we can go back to our 'hobby' in peace is p***ing into the wind. If we want to be professional lets have a professional approach to making that access sustainable and positive for heritage workers and the public.

Reading your previous post as well I completely agree with it - I would rather there were full-time community archaeologists being able to look after community projects as I think it would be a lot healthier, sort of like Finds Liaison Officers connecting with local societies, schools, interested parties etc. However, this is only the case in some areas - lucky them. Elsewhere community projects seem to be a motley bag ranging from the very well run and well thought out, to the extremely poor, even fraudulent where money is syphoned into the pockets of a snake oil salesman with plenty of charm and a good story (God I wish I could name names and projects on this forum).

Getting back to your second post, to say that the entire capitalist system is based entirely on lowest prices is simply not true and smacks of a political agenda that I won't pursue. Archaeology may well be largely won and lost on price (although not exclusively) but that is because it is not something developers have any real interest in so they are not always worried about the quality. It is something that needs to be tackled because it is a circular argument - no one wants to invest in training (for example) because the workforce is seen as transitory but the workforce is seen as transitory in part because no one has bothered to invest in training (and therefore make that work force worth hanging on to). It needs an injection of secure capital to allow that to happen. Cash from HLF and similar projects does have an affect on the 'commercial' sector as much of the supervisory/specialist/report writing is done by professions working for commercial units (although these are often parts of charities - discuss), unless there is a dedicated Community Archaeologist, like yourself. The funding is therefore being transformed into wages for commercial archaeologists who might otherwise be carrying out a watching brief in advance of a new hotel being built. It might therefore seem a strange irony that they find themselves teaching volunteers how to dig or whatever in the knowledge that they have had no official training in their professional careers. I didn't say that money is being sucked out of commercial archaeology by CA, on the contrary, but it is a shame that none of it is apparently available to train the trainers.

The only principles, codes and standards I am aware of in archaeology are those of the IfA, which apply to anyone who is a member, not just commercial archaeologists. I only wish the dire projects I knew of getting 10s of thousands of pounds of HLF funding had any kind of standards watch dog overseeing them.

It was unit who mentioned about the past being private property and I wouldn't want to comment on his thinking... OK, I will. He has a point. Clearly 'the past' is a concept or perhaps a real thing depending how you look at it, but either way it belongs to no-one and everyone. However, the past as defined by archaeology is made up of physical things and they do technically belong to someone, as you said. Even if it is a museum it's not as if they let you take things home for the weekend! Either way this isn't really relevant, but people will still get over exited about the ownership of things from the past and it can become an issue. Treading on the toes of the local community regarding the ownership of artefacts could get quite awkward.

I don't think most people working in 'commercial archaeology' as you seem to define it are worried about the great unwashed poking their noses in, rather they want to be able to get on with their jobs in already trying circumstances. Who wouldn't? I would imagine that everyone working in archaeology is driven by similar passions, it's just sometimes they are not able to express it.

[Unitof1]

what would a community archaeologists want from the ifa codes or why would they want to be a member?

[Comarch]

Thank you very much RedEarth, that was a very interesting post. The point about FLOs was a good one. I will avoid political philosophy so as not to wander from the thread! The election and all that has developed since has wound me up. I very much agree about the number of dodgy projects going on. That is why, Unitof1, CAs need to be watched over and abide by a code of practice that is tailored to their work and needs, as are RAOs. Units employ IfA members because it is supposed to guarantee a certain standard of work/experience in the employee as defined by the IfA, so why not CAs too? Right now I have to walk in off the street and convince a local authority, for example, that I am competent at what I am suggesting they help me to do in the community with archaeology projects. It would help me and them a lot to have some sort of professional backup, as they have with CBA checks. RedEarth, I very much agree as regards the training Catch 22. I wish this question had been addressed when I was in the field, and hope that the next generation of archaeologists will have a different experience. I also agree that to have full time field archaeologists doing CA will not work and is unfair, unless they really have a commitment to it, as I know some have from personal experience. I have two friends in the 'job' who are and love it, because they are working with enthusiastic people, unlike the general atmosphere that pervades the average site hut at lunch time! The answer is that we all need money for training, in all aspects of archaeology - where from is the next question. Yes, yes, I know ownership is a solid concept in archaeology (we study material culture!). But is it fair, as commercial archaeology has to do as presently organised, that a unit, say Oxford, digs a site in, say, Dorset and then buggers off taking all the information and finds with them. I know that they did some community liaison, but once again local people did not have a chance to connect with their past, as located in their area. Or is it just the landowner/developer/unit/supervisor/digger that has earned the right of 'ownership'? Wasn't it in 1832 that the question was discussed as to people only having the right to have a say if they have a stake (property/land) in the country? Discuss. This will be marked...